Sideshow: Carnes Carnival of Errors

This was sent to me by a gentlemen by the name of Delmar England and he gave me permission to post this if I felt it was worthy.

SIDESHOW: CARNES CARNIVAL OF ERRORS

Wolf vs Ramsey Civil Case
1:00-CV-1187-JEC
Carnes Order March 31, 2003

In presentation and outcome, the above captioned case is the
continuation of a theme of errors and deception that has
saturated from the beginning the investigative environment of the
violent death of JonBenet Ramsey. The flaws, i.e., the same
errors incessantly repeated for years and widely acclaimed to be
truth are so numerous, I am obliged to be selective lest I write
a book of encyclopedic proportions.

[To save space, time and effort, I will not identify all quotes
and references as to precise source. However, rest assured, they
do exist and can be provided if necessary. Copy and paste will be
utilized to reduce the chance of error. Additionally, I will make
a conscious effort to present nothing out of context and distort
what has been presented by Judge Carnes or others.]

Mr. Wolf made his Complaint almost totally dependent on the
contention that Patsy Ramsey killed JonBenet, therefore, with
malice named him as a suspect. He set himself the task of proving
the contention. Although the tactic carries heavy legal weight if
successful, he faced the daunting task of proving in a Summary
Judgment Hearing what would have been extremely difficult even in a trial setting wherein he could examine and cross examine
witnesses.

Aside from all this, Mr. Wolf's understanding of the situation
and consequent presentation of alleged facts was severely flawed
with critical errors which seriously worked to his disadvantage.
In the end, it made no difference. Mr. Wolf was going against a
stacked deck and had little to no chance no matter what he
presented, or how he presented it.

I do not quarrel with the fact that Wolf lost his case. He
failed to provide sufficient proof of his allegations. This does
not mean Mr. Wolf was wrong in his contention that Patsy Ramsey
accidently killed JonBenet; just that he failed to prove it.
Judge Carnes needed only to state as much and explain why the
alleged proof was insufficient. She went over the line when she,
in effect, presumed to declare the Ramseys innocent by the
contention that the preponderance of evidence points to intruder.
Not only was she out of bounds with this declaration itself, but
the alleged evidence she gave to support her conclusion is flawed
in method and content. This official sanction of the fallacies
that underlie the notion of an intruder is a hand dealt from the
stacked deck.

The deck of which I speak has been stacked from the outset. Six
days after JonBenet's death, John and Patsy Ramsey went on tv and began a protracted campaign to elicit sympathy and support. Over and over again, one was subjected to the one-sided version of events until in the minds of many, this version appeared to be
the only version, hence, "fact." Even those who consciously
believe the Ramseys are guilty helped promote this version by
believing and repeating critical parts of the RST myths. In going
along with certain claims of the Ramseys, they unknowingly
support that which they propose to oppose. The myths and
misconceptions repeatedly presented as fact in a wide array of
media outlets is the entire basis for Judge Carnes' conclusion of
probable intruder.

In all the tv presentations I have seen, and all the many
transcripts I have read, in none is there a single presentation
set up for a party or parties to challenges the endless flow of
fabrications in the name of Ramsey innocence. (I don't call
powder puff interviews challenges) No indeed, instead of the
Ramseys, Smit, Wood, et al, putting their claims to a test by
serious interrogation, the scene has been, and still is, to avoid
such confrontation on the real issues and revealing questions.

The only confrontation the Ramseys and Wood are looking for is
threatening those with dissenting opinion with a libel\slander
lawsuit. Mr. Wood has reached the apex of absurdity with this
tactic when he recently sent emails to 30 to 40 persons or
organizations threatening them with a lawsuit if they dared print
an article written by Ryan Ross of Crime Magazine.

Oh yes, Mr. Wood is in the cat bird seat, or perhaps vulture
perch would be a more apt description. Being an attorney, Mr.
Wood has forms close at hand and knows the legal procedure for
filing a lawsuit. The cost to him in time and money is minimal.
On the other hand, a layman defendant who has neither forms, nor procedural know how is obliged to hire an attorney at great
expense. More than one person has gone bankrupt defending an
unwarranted lawsuit, hence, whether Mr. Wood's suit(s) or
threatened suits have merit or simply is to intimidate and
silence critics is open to question.

Since 1997, the Ramseys have made many media appearances as well as writing a book claiming their innocence. If they believed that everybody else believed they are innocent, these appearances and book would have no point. The appearances and the book, are by logical inference, eliciting an opinion as to their guilt or innocence. Yet, if someone holds an opinion contrary to their wishes, he\she dare not speak it without positioning self in the path of a possible expensive lawsuit to defend the very opinion the Ramseys solicited.

The foregoing is relevant to this analysis of the Carnes' ruling
in that the atmosphere preceding the hearing strongly influenced
what is alleged to be Statements Of Fact and served as the basis
for the judge's conclusion. Nay, strongly influenced is too weak.
The atmosphere DIRECTED the verdict.

On page 2, Judge Carnes writes:

"Sometime on the night of December 25 or the early morning
of December 26, 1996, JonBenet Ramsey was murdered.(SMF 2.)"

Duly note this is called a Statement OF Material Fact. On what
basis? The Plaintiff (Wolf) contends that Patsy Ramsey killed
JonBenet by accident. The Defendants (Ramseys) claim that
JonBenet was murdered. This is an issue to be decided by the
facts. However, even before any facts or alleged facts are
examined, Judge Carnes rules in favor of the Ramseys. The
hearing is over. The decision has been rendered. The other 91
pages are merely filler. Judge Carnes has no other recourse from
the conclusion of murder except to "find" "evidence" to support
said conclusion. Where will she "find" it? The stacked deck, of
course.

"JonBenet's body was bound with complicated rope slipknots and a garrotte attached to her body. (Defs.' Br. In Supp. Of Summ. J.
[67] at 19; SMF163; PSMF 163.) The slipknots and the garrote are
both sophisticated bondage devices designed to give control to
the user. (SMF 161, 164; PSMF 161, 164.) Evidence from these
devices suggests they were made by someone with expertise
using rope and cords,

If this were true, it certainly suggests murder. However, it is
not true. Although the Defendants make the claim of "expertise"
and "sophisticated bondage devices", not a single bit of evidence
is introduced, nor a word of definitive theory uttered to
validate the claim. It is simply claim for sake of self-serving
claim which the judge does not question.

In reality, the claim of "sophisticated" and "expertise"
arbitrarily verbally attached to the "garrote scene" is totally
false, ridiculously so. This is the primary fallacy on which all
the others gain psychological support. Its the launch pad, the
foundation of the fallacy tower. Its the make or break item in
the whole crime scene. It is a core issue to be tried. Yet, is
not tried; just declared to be fact by the judge.

"....which cords could not be found or "sourced" within
defendants' home. (SMF 169; PSMF 169.)"

Were the cords "sourced" to anyone else's home?

I have already written an analysis of the "garrote scene" quite
some time ago. I won't go into detail about all the flaws in the
"garrote scene" in this writing, but since its a major part of
the basis for the ruling by Judge Carnes, I will address the
subject in some measure.

By the Ramseys, Lou Smit and others, the "garrote scene" has been repeatedly and emphatically described as "Sophisticated",
"complex", "intricate" and "professional." It is implied to be
the work of someone very knowledgeable in the construction and
use of what is referred to as a "garrote." The "garrote" is
declared to reveal "expertise" and implied to be professionally
efficient.

On the other hand, I evaluate the "garrote scene" as amateurish,
childish, inept and inefficient. It was created by a bungling
novice. How bad is it? If I had seen this same cord\stick
arrangement lying around somewhere and didn't know the maker, I would have immediately assumed a 4 or 5 year old child was playing around with some string and stick and this is what he\she came up with. No, I do not exaggerate. This is how amateurish the "garrote scene" actually is.

"Evidence from these devices suggests they were made by someone with expertise using rope and cords, which cords could not be found or "sourced" within defendants' home."

All or nearly all the "evidence" the Judge speaks of can be
"sourced" to the false and factually unsupported claims of Lou
Smit. Judge Carnes treats Smit as an expert witness without any
antecedent action to establish that Smit is knowledgeable in the
areas in which he gives "expert testimony." This is exactly what
has been going on for years. Smit has gone here and there
"testifying" about "garrotes" and stun guns as if he held
extensive knowledge in these areas. His ignorance of that which
he claims to hold vast knowledge is pathetically appalling. The
numerous, and I do mean numerous, absurdities that Smit has
uttered, now by Judge Carnes' action, are on the record as
Statement Of Facts, i.e, "official truth."

"(SMF 157-158; PSMF 157-15B.) The end portion of the paintbrush
used to construct the garrote was never found."

Proving or disproving what? How"

" (SMF 159; PSMF No evidence exists that either defendant knew
how to tie such knots. (SMF 162; PSMF 162.)"

What knots? Those "complex" and "sophisticated" ones that don't
exist? Over and over again, the claim of expertise is made and
implied to exonerate the Ramseys, but not once has John Ramsey,
Lou Smit, or any of the RST made any effort to prove expertise by
revealing the difference between competence and incompetence in the "garrote scene." They have not been required to provide
because no official, nor any media person I know of issued any
challenge. They have been given a free ride on this CENTRAL self-
serving fallacy for years. Is it any wonder the myth lives on?

"Although plaintiff agrees the garrote is the instrument used to
murder JonBenet, he argues that the cord with which the wrists
were tied would not have bound a live child and is evidence of a
staging. (PSDMF 51.)"

Unfortunately, the Plaintiff did not really understand the
situation and works against himself. Nevertheless, the whole
"garrote scene" IS evidence of staging.

"The autopsy report supports the conclusion that she was alive
before she was asphyxiated by strangulation and that she fought
her Page 17 attacker in some manner. (SMF 42-43, 46, 48; PSMF
42-43, 46, 48. ) Evidence gathered during the autopsy is
consistent with the inference that she struggled to remove the
garrote from her neck."

I concede that it is remotely possible that JonBenet was still
barely alive when the cord was tied around her neck, it does not
have to be. If evidence indicated oxygen deprivation and there
is a cord around the neck, Dr. Meyer may have jumped to the
conclusion that this is cause. Is it absolutely certain that the
cord was responsible for the oxygen deprivation? Is it possible
that blocked air way passages by some other means such as
unconscious and face down on a carpet, or some other situation
that cut off the air supply account for the oxygen deprivation?
In any event, the cord around the neck was secondary to the head trauma and not the instrument of premeditated murder.

"Evidence gathered during the autopsy is consistent with the
inference that she struggled to remove the garrote from her
neck."

Nonsense. This is just more of Smit's claims without factual
basis. What "evidence" the Judge doesn't say. There is none; only
Smit's claim. What the actual evidence reveals is that she was
unconscious when the cord was tied around her neck, therefore,
certainly did not "struggle to remove the garrote."

"Moreover, leaves and debris, consistent with the leaves and
debris found in the window well, were found on the floor under
the broken window suggesting that someone had actually entered the basement through this window. (SMF 136; PSMF 136.)"

There is only one broken window in the scene, but the stories
connected to it are numerous and infinitely variable. John said
he deliberately broke it during the summer when he lost his keys
and entered through said window in his underwear. One would think that such an experience would be set in mind for a long time and one would have no doubt. However, John later says I "think" I broke the window as if he weren't totally sure.

It seems the window affects a lot of minds. Patsy couldn't recall
whether she had it repaired or not. Smit mentions it in relation
to a photo that it may have been opened by John Ramsey and Fleet White. Exactly when this "may have" took place, Smit did not say.

At another time, the window story goes like this:

KING: A window. Was that window open when they investigated it?

SMIT: Yes. When John Ramsey had first seen the window...

Mr. Smit leaves out some information about the "open" window when John first saw it. When John Ramsey was asked about the window in reference to when he first entered the basement on the morning of Dec. 26, he said, "it was open (an inch or so)"

"open an inch or so" By jove, it looks like we have a very small
intruder, or else, a very considerate one who took the time to
close the window except for "an inch or so" as he departed.

As for the debris, if there are two sound windows and one broken
one, which one do you think the wind might blow stuff through?

"Certain undisputed evidence of how defendants' house was found on the morning of December 26 is also consistent with the
intruder theory of the crime. For example, the lights were on in
the basement, when first searched at approximately 6:15 a.m. that day."

Patsy Ramsey: "Well, I was there, I was down there a lot on the
24th wrapping, and I was there on the 25th wrapping.."

No way Patsy could have left the light on. It had to be an
intruder. Right? The judge has declared it so. (6:15 a.m. is the
approximate time that John said he entered the basement on the
26th and found the window open "an inch or two.")

"Defendants further aver that the undisputed physical evidence is
not consistent with an "accidental killing followed by staging,"
(Defs.' Br. In Supp. Of Summ. J. [67]), but instead is more
consistent with a theory that the intruder subdued JonBenet in
her bedroom and then took her to the basement, where she was
sexually assaulted and subsequently murdered. First, JonBenet's
body was found bound with complicated and sophisticated
bondage devices, namely neatly-made rope slipknots and a
garrotte, designed to give control to the user. (Defs.' Br. In
Supp. Of Summ. J. [67] at 19; SMF 161, 163-164; PSMF 161,
163-164.)"

Here we go again with the "professional garrote" bit. To add to
the absurdity, its now also called a"complicated" and
"sophisticated bondage devices" In conjunction with this myth is
the myth of sexual assault. There is evidence of genital assault
with a paint brush handle. This does not make it a sexual
assault. Could it be it was intended to make it look like a
sexual assault? I have no doubt of this.

"The parties agree that such devices necessarily were made by
someone with expertise in bondage. (SMF 162, 169; PSMF 162,
169.) While it is certainly possible that defendants" possessed
such unusual and specialized skills, there is no evidence that
establishes this fact. Obviously, if defendants lacked the
skills"

If Wolf was to have even the slightest chance of winning the
suit, it was imperative that he destroy the myth of "expertise."
Instead, in ignorance, he agreed to the main support fallacy of
the Defendants. Dead in the water.

By Judge Carnes, over and over again, the Ramseys are exonerated on the basis of "sophisticated" "garrote scene" and declaration that the Ramseys did not have the necessary skills, therefore are exempted as potential creator. Did they have the skills of a confused and nervous amateur?

I KNOW the "garrote scene" is the work of a bungling amateur that didn't have the foggiest notion of what he was doing. This person was so inept and so rattled that he didn't even make a noose and slip it over her head. Instead he TIED the cord around the neck. The handle was never pulled. It is nothing more than a grossly amateurish silly prop, a construct the novice creator of this
scene "thought" a "garrote handle" should look like. (Poor guess)

Smit, by words, paints the picture of devious, pedophile intruder
who planned the actions of kidnapping JonBenet, sexual assault
and murder. He depicts a pervert who is calm, cool and collected.
The intruder in Smit's "hypothesis" is so fearless that he
lingers in the house long enough to practice and then write a
multi-page ransom note. Smit's pedophile intruder is fearless, he
kidnaps JonBenet; sexually assaults her and murders her without
concern that he might be discovered by other occupants of the
house.

Smit's intruder is a well experienced in this sort of thing.
Smit's intruder is an "expert" in the construction and use of a
"garrote", which Smit characterizes as "professional",
"sophisticated", "complex" and "intricate."

These are the subjective words of Smit. What does the objective
evidence declare by logical inference from the facts? Grossly
amateurish construct for one. By a calm and cool person? Hardly.
Aside from literally every aspect of the "garrote scene" being
flawed, the creator of this scene appeared to be extremely
stressed as well. Even those with no experience in this area
knows that the primary purpose of a lasso or noose is to make the noose larger than the object of its intended use, put it over
said object, then slip it down to tighten.

Smit's intruder failed to show even this absolute minimal
knowledge of a noose and its application. He failed to make a
noose, then put it over the head and tighten it around the neck.
The hair entangled IN the knot as the head leaves no doubt that
the cord around JonBenet's neck was TIED, not a noose made, then slipped down to tighten.

This tells that this mind was not even thinking of the slip
action of a noose. The detail of what this mind was thinking, I
cannot say, but for sure, to tie the cord around the neck reveals
a mind not contemplating pulling and tightening. What was the
"handle" all about? An after thought. As stated above, it is
nothing more than a grossly amateurish silly prop, a construct
the novice creator of this scene "thought" a "garrote handle"
should look like. Hair entangled in the ridiculous "mummy wrapped
handle" tells that it was constructed after the cord was tied
around the neck. The hair stuck to the hands of the perpetrator
and transferred to the cord around the stick. The picture the
facts paint is the exact opposite of the absurd fantasy Smit
would have us believe.

To repeat and emphasize: I KNOW its staging; no ifs, ands, or
buts about it. Can I prove it? Try me. Its a universal invitation
of long standing. So far, no one has stepped forward.

In case you are wondering how I know, a bit of background can
explain. I was born on and grew up on a farm. Cords, ropes,
handles, snares, lassos and the like were a daily part of my life
for decades. I know the names of only a few knots. However, by
understanding the physics involved, I can construct the
appropriate rope, cord, handle, noose apparatus for just about
any occasion. For instance, I can construct a halter from hay
baler twine that will fit the head of not only a 200 pound calf,
but will fit the head of a 2000 pound horse as well. This design
was revealed to me by a veterinarian who dealt with many
different sizes of animals. The "one size fits all" cuts down on
inventory.

This notice of background is not to solicit acceptance of me as
an "expert witness." That's the last thing I want. The background
it go explain how I know what I know and why I can physically
demonstrate the truth of what I say so that you can be your own
"expert witness." This is an offer I assure you that Mr. Smit
will never make.)

"Further, the end portion of the paintbrush and the cord used to
construct the garrote were never found in the house, or
elsewhere, nor was the latter sourced to defendants. 34 (SMF 159; PSMF l59.) (SMF 162; PSMF 162.) The black duct tape used on"

Here and in numerous other places in her ruling, Judge Carnes
makes it a point to point out the non existent. The end portion
of the paint brush is missing and no cord was found in the house
other than what was at the "garrote scene." She implies that this
absence of materials similar to those connected to the crime
somehow implies Ramsey innocence and intruder guilt.

Aside from ignoring the obvious that disposal of any excess
material would have been a simple task, in her zeal to find
"evidence" of a "murder", she forgets that this door swings
both ways. If absence of similar and\or portions of crime scene
material means the Ramseys are innocent, doesn't the same
rationale mean that presence of similar material connected to the
Ramseys mean they are guilty?

Isn't it strange that Judge Carnes overlooked the presence of the
note pad and pen connected to the crime, which by her own
rationale, pronounce the Ramseys guilty. Ergo, the sum total of
her assessment by this means of "gathering evidence" is zero.

"Specifically, a rope was found inside a brown paper sack in the
guest bedroom on the second floor; defendants have indicated that neither of these items belonged to them. (SMF 181; PSMF 181.)"

Yesterday, I discovered a ball point pen in my desk drawer that I
don't recall putting there. Gee, it must have been an intruder.
Also, a couple of days ago, I noticed a small bit of paint
chipped off the corner of a doorway. I don't recall doing it and
don't know who or what did. Gee, it must have been an intruder.

"Plaintiff, of course, argues that any evidence suggesting an
intruder was staged by defendants. Even assuming that all the
above evidence could have been staged, however, defendants point to other evidence for which a theory of contrivance by them seems either impossible or highly implausible. First, defendants note the existence of several recently-made unidentified shoeprints containing a "HI-TEC" brand mark were found in the basement imprinted in mold growing on the basement floor. (SMF 151-152; PSMF 151-152.) Defendants do not own any "HI-TEC" brand shoes and none of their shoes match the shoeprint marks. (SMF 153; PSMF 153.) Likewise, another similar partial shoeprint was found near where JonBenet's body was found. (SMF 155; PSMF 155. ) The owner of the "HI-TEC" shoe that made the footprints at the murder scene has never been identified. (SMF 154, 155;

Of course, the existence of these shoeprints and palmprint is not
dispositive, as they could have been made prior to the time of "

The unknown is NEVER evidence. To pretend otherwise is to take a chance that it will come back and bite. It did. The "unknown"
"intruder evidence" of shoeprint and palm print, much touted
earlier by the RST has been shown to be from local parties, i.e,
benign. Question: If the "unknown" was evidence of Ramseys
innocence when it was unknown, by the same rationale, does it
become evidence of their guilt when known since it opposes the
idea of intruder.

"Of course, the existence of these shoeprints and palmprint is
not dispositive, as they could have been made prior to the time
of "

Why is it that "these shoeprints and palmprint is not
dispositive?" The disposal of a case depends on conclusive
evidence. The unknown, by definition, cannot be conclusive
evidence, indeed, not evidence at all as stated above. When Judge Carnes uses the phrase, "not dispositive", she is inadvertently retracting her claims of evidence based on the unknown.

"Specifically, defendants note that unidentified male DNA--which
does not match that of a;ny Ramsey- -was found under JonBenet's fingernails. 36 (SMF 173-174, 177; PSMF 173, 177. ) In addition, male DNA, again not matching any Ramsey, was found in
JonBenet's underwear. ( SMF 175 ; PSMF 175.)"

Since this unknown DNA is in the same category as before, I guess that makes it "not dispositive" as well, doesn't it. Ergo, as
related to evidence: sum zero.

"Plaintiff does not agree that a stun gun was used, however,
arguing that the evidence establishing the same is inconclusive.
Yet, although plaintiff disputes that a stun gun was used in the
murder, he has failed to produce any evidence to suggest what
caused the burnlike marks on JonBenet."

Failure to know and provide proof of cause constitutes proof of
an unproven claim of cause? On what planet?

"In addition, the Court notes that defendants have provided'
compelling testimony from homicide detective Andrew Louis Smit,
who is widely regarded as an expert investigator, in support of
the intruder theory. (SMF 168; PSMF 168.)"

Judge Carnes starts out with the conclusion of murder with said
conclusion much influenced by the fallacy, "professional garrote
scene." From there, she repeatedly invokes the "unknown" as
"evidence" of an intruder. Now she reveals that her "evidence"
comes by "truth via authority"; said authority being one Lou
Smit.

"Indeed, while Detective Smit is an experienced and respected
homicide detective, Detective Thomas had no investigative
experience concerning homicide cases prior to this case."

The phrase, experienced homicide detective, is a bit broad for my
taste. How much experience has Mr. Smit had with ropes, cord,
knots, garrotes, and that sort of thing.

Based on the actual evidence of amateurish construction which is
in 180 degree contrast with Smit's claims of "professional", the
answer is either little to none; or else Smit knows the "garrote
scene" is amateurish and has been consciously lying about it for
years.

How about stun guns? What's Mr. Smit's experience in this area?
How about his experience in electricity and electronics. The
reason I ask is because Mr.Smit's conclusion that a stun gun was
used is based in part on this:

Smit: "When the stun gun is energized you see a light blue mark
and if you look closely at the blow-up you'll see a light blue
mark extending from one of the marks to the other on the back of
JonBenét."

The blue arc you see is caused by the ionization of air molecules
by the high voltage. Its not a magic marker. The color does not
transfer to skin nor any other surface.

Background: Approximately, 6000 hours of formal schooling in many areas of electronics. Estimated over 100,000 hours of independent study as well as considerable experience in the field. I assure you, ionized air molecules do not burn the skin blue any more than a gas flame turns a skillet blue. No matter. Since when did Smit let a few facts interfere with his preferred conclusions?

It is rather obvious to anyone in the know that Mr. Smit simply
makes it up as he goes along. He says and claims ultimate
absurdities as "proof of an intruder". Judge Carnes just follows
along and calls it "evidence." As I said, a stacked deck from the
git go.

As indicated by the ruling, the "garrote scene" is crucial and
pivotal evidence; a point which I have been trying to make for
over three years with little success.

In the O.J. Simpson case, one of the most damning pieces of
evidence against O.J. was the glove; that is, if the truth about
it were known. It wasn't. This truth never appeared in any media
that I know of and the "prosecutors" managed to take this best
piece of evidence, ignore the truth about it, and mess up so
horribly that their treatment of this evidence benefited O.J.
Indeed, there is a very high probability that O.J would be
sitting in jail today is the truth about the glove was
incorporated into the prosecution.

Exactly the same thing has been and is happening in the Ramsey
case in regard to the evidence revealed by the truth about the
"garrote scene." If the members of a jury heard the same
propaganda without opposition, like Carnes did, would they not
likely believes as well with an emotional tendency to exonerate
the Ramseys.

To grasp the full significance of this evidence, let's look at
options and impressions as presented fallacy is contrasted with
the truth about the "garrote scene."

What happens to the Ramsey\Smit theory of "sophisticated"
pedophile intruder when the intruder theory fabrications are
removed and "intruder" is coupled with the facts?

A pedophile "plans" to kidnap JonBenet for ransom and\or sexual
assault, and to kill her, or he made decisions along the way. He
enters the house, but does not bring a prepared ransom note, nor materials. He use a pad and pen on the premises. Its a long note with practice evidence, so apparently, he is not concerned with being discovered. Also, he never attempts to collect the ransom; not to mention he leaves the body in the house for likely
discovery destroying his leverage.

In the course of the evening's events, he decides to "sexually
assault" JonBenet. For this, he uses a paint brush handle.
He then decides to kill her. He could hit her with something. He
could bang her head on a hard surface. He could manually strangle her; or he could stab her with a knife from the kitchen. He chooses none of these item requiring little knowledge and skill.
He chooses to strangle her with a "garrote."

The evidence tells that all materials whose source is known is
part of the Ramsey household. The "evidence" reveals an ad hoc
amateurish and inefficient construction, which in turn, reveals
the intruder is totally unfamiliar with the structure and use of
his weapon of choice. He ignores all the other options to cause
JonBenet's death and choose a means he knows nothing about. Does this make sense?

Would a jury believe that a pedophile intruder comes in without
bringing a single known item needed for the crime of kidnapping
or murder and eventually choose a means of homicide with which he is totally unfamiliar?

Once it is established that the "garrote scene" is not
"professional", but the work of a bungling amateur, the idea of
authenticity goes out the window. This identifies the "garrote
scene" as inept staging. By whom? An intruder?

It's one thing to sell the idea of intruder\murderer supported by
the myth of "professional." It's quite another to convince anyone
that an intruder staged a crime scene, or his weapon of choice
was "garrote" which he knew nothing about; and let us not forget
the amateurish "garrote scene" was an ad hoc creation made from materials at hand .

SMIT: "If it's not the Ramseys, then it's an intruder. If there
is no intruder, then it has to be the Ramseys."

There you have it.

Delmar England
delmar@ct.net

Additional references:

Delmar's Garotte Analysis
http://www.acandyrose.com/delmarengland.htm

ACandyRose
http://www.acandyrose.com
http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com

 

Right on. This crime scene was anything but "expert.' It's a hodgepodge of conflicting motives and that is completely consistant with staging.

Oh yeah and I love how John Ramsey can build a billion dollar business from the ground up, but is somehow too stupid to tie a knot.

I'd like to see Lou Smit prosecuted for Obstruction of Justice.

 

So would I, BobC

Lou Smit has damaged this case more than anyone with his convoluted opinions.

It just goes to show, though, just how many stupid people there are in this world. What a shocker that Judge Carnes appears to be one of them. She used Smit as the expert of note in her decision. I hate to think the corruption spreads that deeply, but it makes no sense she would use Smit's opinions, which are NOT based on the evidence, as gospel truth when he is so thoroughly compromised in this case. The whole thing just stinks.

Delmar makes Smit look like an amateur.

 

Here's what I want to know, WY--and hopefully some legal types can help me out here:

Why the hell does somebody like Chris Wolfe have to PROVE Patsy killed Jonbenet to have a libel case? I mean why is just showing that there is absolutely no evidence that he was within 50 miles of JBR that night not enough? This seems a lot like having to prove you're innocent to me.

The Ramseys should have kept their fat, ugly mouths shut regarding Wolfe's "guilt," but they didn't, so why should they not get the big shake-down? I mean CW didn't have a dead six YO in his basement, unlike the Ramseys who are profitting off her death.

 

I agree with the obstruction charge against Smitten. Yes, he has done more harm to this case than a lot of others have.

Thanks for posting this here ACR. I am in contact by email with Mr. England myself, and had received this analysis in my email, along with his note he was going to send this to you. He does a fascinating analysis of the garrotte, imo, and it makes a lot of sense. But I can sure feel his frustration with the idiots involved with the case.

 

what hacks me off..

I feel like screaming every time Lou brings up his stupid idea that the marks near the ligature are fingernail marks - thus showing JonBenet struggled with the garrote.

The autopsy does not support the stupid idea that she struggled with the garrote. I'm going to go bang my head against the wall for awhile.....

 

Chris Wolfe did not have to

take it upon himself to prove Patsy Ramsey committed the murder, herself, and therefore she knew what they said about him was false no more than the Ramseys had to prove someone else committed the crime to collect on all their libel lawsuits for Burke and for themselves.

I don't know why Darnay Hoffman went that route in the first place and I hate to accuse him of trying to make a name for himself on the back of Chris Wolfe, but honestly, that's the way it appears to me.

IMO, the Ramseys most certainly did libel Chris Wolfe, and that should have stood on its own merit. The ones making the accusations are the ones who bear the burden of proof. They may not have come right out and said that Chris Wolfe killed JB, but they said enough to damage him. They could not prove Chris Wolfe killed JB or that there was any evidence against him that would warrant a closer look at him as JR suggested in DOI. There's where the libel comes in. Wolfe stood a much better chance of winning his case on what was said in the book alone than he did in having to prove that Patsy was the killer. That was just dumb, but that wasn't Wolfe's fault, it was Hoffman's fault. He promised more than he could deliver.

So, BobC, I agree with you. Hoffman made it much more difficult than it needed to be.

 

Tricia that's not how it works. There is not a shred of evidence linking Wolfe to the crime scene. None. Nada. Nothing. He doesn't have to PROVE he wasn't there. I mean I can't prove I wasn't there either, nor can anybody else here, but we don't have to.

I don't understand why proving Patsy did the crime even comes into this. It's crazy. It's just amazing to me that the Ramseys can shake down one media outlet after another when all the evidence points straight to them, and it can be proven they were in the house with the body, but Chris Wolfe has to prove Patsy did it to have a lible suit.

 

I heart Delmar England

What a brilliant piece. Frustrating as all hell to read and realize the stupidity of people in positions of power.

Thanks for sharing, ACR.

Ayeka

 

It's up to Darnay to pick his grounds for accusing Patsy of libel. He chose the most difficult, and quite nearly impossible one: that of claiming that she libelled Wolf because she was the murderer. He could have taken the easier route and shown that by the same standards the Ramseys use to exculpate themselves (handwriting, DNA, no priors, etc.), that Wolf was of a similar level of innocence and should be accorded at least as much reasonable doubt as that which the Ramseys demand for themselves. To that, I think even Lin Wood would have been reduced to "nahaminahaminahamina..."

 

Well...

First, Darnay would have had to learn how to present a cogent argument and support it with facts, things he avoided doing from the get-go. You want a laugh? Read his depositions! I'venever seen an opposing counsel help a lawyer with phrasing questions like happened in that one. And what did Darnay get for his wonderful opportunity of finally getting John and Patsy in seats around a table? "I dunno." "I don't remember." "Can't say." Aiii...

It's commendable that England and Ross are so angry about this case that they have put their pens to paper and their minds to good use. They both made wonderful points.

And YES, BobC! Why hasn't Smitty been charged with obstruction of justice? It's clear and provable. Maybe this is something someone should chronicle and present to someone who can make a difference.

Finally, someone recently mentioned that the Rs should be charged with lesser crimes. I know we all discussed this long ago, but that's not possible under Colo. law when murder charges are on the table. Generally, they charge the greater crime and juries are free to find defendants guilty of any lesser included crime if they feel the greater crime has not been proven. Colo law also has a statute that requires prosecutors to file on all crimes arising out of the same incident at the same time. Consequently, if they file a manslaughter instead of a murder, the murder could never be filed if they proceed with the manslaughter. It's a pretty good system.

 

I'll tell you why Lou Smit hasn't been charged with Obstruction. Because nobody cares anymore. The same reason Patsy Ramsey hasn't been charged with Obstruction of Justice. Jameson too. The Ramsey's private investigators have been busy boys and I'm not talking about finding "the real killer" either.

 

It makes me so mad....

everytime I see Loose Mitt running his yap about how the Ramsey's are innocent. No one ever challenges him when he is on TV. I remember watching the Court TV one, and he was just so proud that he had a picture of JB in his wallet. (It may have been 48 Whores, I can't remember)

And then the stupid judge takes his "expert" opinion like he was Moses coming down from the mountain with the Ten Commandments! How stupid is she?

I saw in The Globe this week about how Mary Keenan believes Santa Bill killed JB. Are they ever going to let that poor man rest in peace?

Bob, I would love to see Louie charged with obstruction of justice, along with Hunter, DeMuth, Keenan, and Jammy Sue! Hunter should have lost his job when it was revealed that he was talking to Jeff Shapiro and telling him to go after Eller. Koby should have been fired too for making Gosage destroy those tapes.

 

Well Tez there's a reason why Lou Smit never appears with anyone who knows anything about this case--he'd be made a complete fool of.

Did you all read in the police transcripts where Lou called the chair in front of the door leading to the supposed escape route in the basement a "bugaboo?' It was if he was talking to a five YO. I almost spit up.